forums

Blue Chip Ratio - Death

DTP said:
Incorrect. Wallace Wade (yes, the same guy Duke's stadium is named after) won 3 titles. Frank Thomas won 2. Gene Stallings won 1.
Click to expand...

So you're saying since 1892..they won all of their national championships with 5 coaches-is that correct? How does that not underscore the pt that coaching is more important than talent.
 
Advertisement
Getting blue chippers is important.

Having the coaching to do something with it is important.

The two go hand-in-hand. LSU's blue chip ratio was fantastic, but Les Miles wasted it.

Coker's teams in the early 2000s were chock-full of blue chippers. But he wasted it.

One is not better than the other; you need both, or you have no shot.
 
DMoney said:
www.bannersociety.com

Blue-Chip Ratio 2019

This is Bud Elliott’s statistical benchmark for the minimum talent needed in order to win a national title.
www.bannersociety.com www.bannersociety.com
Click to expand...

Our under-performance is worse still when considering that our immediate competition each year is comprised of ACC teams. Yes, there are 15 teams on that list who have a better blue-chip ratios, but we only play two to three of them regularly and in many years only play one of them (Clemson, ND & FSU).

Sure we likely need more talent to challenge for a NC. But lack of talent has nothing to with being unable to win the ACC Coastal against, UNC, UVA, VT, GT, Duke and Pitt.
 
Consistently landing blue chip players and top recruiting classes obviously are huge factors in the success of Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma, etc. When you continually load up, you can afford to have misses - either poor evaluations or serious injuries. You're going to have real competition and depth.
Also, those programs know who they are & how they want to play. They recruit to a system. Players know if they sign there, they'll likely be developed - if they're not cast off or injured - with a good chance to play in the NFL. The coaching turnover at those places isn't crazy (Alabama being an obvious exception) and when there is, another coach plugs in and the system/structure doesn't change.
Miami is a mess when it comes to a system and continuity. From season-to-season, it's **** near impossible to determine Miami's identity. Recruiting is a grab bag. Head coaches walk away or are blown out after 3-4 years. Offensive coordinators & their systems come and go. OL and DL coaches have an even shorter shelf life.
Obviously, Manny landed exuberant as **** and oversold the product and expectations. But if Miami is ever to be competitive on the national stage, it's probably best to live with the growing pains and hope Manny can eventually bring the system and continuity that Miami has lacked for a couple decades. Otherwise, we're just spinning our wheels.
 
PalyCane said:
Our under-performance is worse still when considering that our immediate competition each year is comprised of ACC teams. Yes, there are 15 teams on that list who have a better blue-chip ratios, but we only play two to three of them regularly and in many years only play one of them (Clemson, ND & FSU).

Sure we likely need more talent to challenge for a NC. But lack of talent has nothing to with being unable to win the ACC Coastal against, UNC, UVA, VT, GT, Duke and Pitt.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I was shocked when I looked at the recruiting rankings for some of the Coastal teams. We start two 4* OL and last I checked that's more than the rest of the league combined.
 
g8rh8rMD said:
We have far more blue chips than Wisconsin. They eat our lunch whenever they want to.
Click to expand...
If Whiskey keeps winning like this, they will slowly up that rating just like Clemson has. Although, Clemson has far less than some of these schools who they'd beat. Yep, coaching, which includes recruiting, matters.
 
Katzenboyer said:
Getting blue chippers is important.

Having the coaching to do something with it is important.

The two go hand-in-hand. LSU's blue chip ratio was fantastic, but Les Miles wasted it.

Coker's teams in the early 2000s were chock-full of blue chippers. But he wasted it.

One is not better than the other; you need both, or you have no shot.
Click to expand...

Coaching is more important because it gets the talent.

Teams that try to do it the other way around have a much harder time.
 
Advertisement
bacane said:
Consistently landing blue chip players and top recruiting classes obviously are huge factors in the success of Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma, etc. When you continually load up, you can afford to have misses - either poor evaluations or serious injuries. You're going to have real competition and depth.
Also, those programs know who they are & how they want to play. They recruit to a system. Players know if they sign there, they'll likely be developed - if they're not cast off or injured - with a good chance to play in the NFL. The coaching turnover at those places isn't crazy (Alabama being an obvious exception) and when there is, another coach plugs in and the system/structure doesn't change.
Miami is a mess when it comes to a system and continuity. From season-to-season, it's **** near impossible to determine Miami's identity. Recruiting is a grab bag. Head coaches walk away or are blown out after 3-4 years. Offensive coordinators & their systems come and go. OL and DL coaches have an even shorter shelf life.
Obviously, Manny landed exuberant as **** and oversold the product and expectations. But if Miami is ever to be competitive on the national stage, it's probably best to live with the growing pains and hope Manny can eventually bring the system and continuity that Miami has lacked for a couple decades. Otherwise, we're just spinning our wheels.
Click to expand...

Manny needs more experience and recruiters on his staff.

If he is shrewd in upgrading his staff, I think he can grow into what we need.
 
craval85 said:
Ok 5 coaches. But does that make my pt any less valid?
Click to expand...
Do you really think that Bama had the talent level when all the other coaches were there? I know the BC ratio is a new thing, but i bet if we went back to other college football periods the premise would still hold true i would bet

Want further proof that it's more players over coaching....go look at Georgia's staff. Their DC and Co DC were GAs like 4 years ago, their resumes are very similar to Patke and Bandas. I mean they have hartley who everyone here said is a corch, they have Coley as OC who couldn't land big kids here and was very average as a play caller, but yet now they're part of a "real staff?" UGA has a very similar staff to us with a HC that has proven to make very bad calls in big games, but yet they're still up in contention....Maybe that's because they have bought a top 3 roster.

My point is everyone who things with just the right coach we'll get back.....we won't. It's an arms race now and that is a very expensive game to play at this time. The top teams have payrolls with their football teams like SMU back in the day.
 
PalyCane said:
Our under-performance is worse still when considering that our immediate competition each year is comprised of ACC teams. Yes, there are 15 teams on that list who have a better blue-chip ratios, but we only play two to three of them regularly and in many years only play one of them (Clemson, ND & FSU).

Sure we likely need more talent to challenge for a NC. But lack of talent has nothing to with being unable to win the ACC Coastal against, UNC, UVA, VT, GT, Duke and Pitt.
Click to expand...

You beat me to it. We've always been more talented than those schools. Stars definitely matter but coaching matters more in our case. No excuse to lose to inferior opponents with our talent.
 
Fawk_U Haters said:
Do you really think that Bama had the talent level when all the other coaches were there? I know the BC ratio is a new thing, but i bet if we went back to other college football periods the premise would still hold true i would bet

Want further proof that it's more players over coaching....go look at Georgia's staff. Their DC and Co DC were GAs like 4 years ago, their resumes are very similar to Patke and Bandas. I mean they have hartley who everyone here said is a corch, they have Coley as OC who couldn't land big kids here and was very average as a play caller, but yet now they're part of a "real staff?" UGA has a very similar staff to us with a HC that has proven to make very bad calls in big games, but yet they're still up in contention....Maybe that's because they have bought a top 3 roster.

My point is everyone who things with just the right coach we'll get back.....we won't. It's an arms race now and that is a very expensive game to play at this time. The top teams have payrolls with their football teams like SMU back in the day.
Click to expand...
Point is, it's not simply one thing. It's not as easy as someone having "bought" a top 3 roster. It's also the coaching, culture, system, facilities, expectations. Yeah, Coley is now running the offense at UGA, but it's the UGA and Kirby Smart offense with better talent than he had at Miami. And be sure, if he screws it up or they slip in the slightest, Smart will have no patience and UGA will throw money at the problem and seek an immediate fix.
 
RightSaidFred said:
Do you understand what an outlier is?
Click to expand...

It's the exception that proves that coaching matters. I honestly can't believe this is even still a discussion after what we've been through in the past 18 years. If talent was all that mattered, we'd be winning the coastal every year (let's be realistic and call it 80% of the time). There's simply no debating that.

Coaching is important, and recruiting talented and highly rated/sought after players is important.

Why must so many people insist that we live in a binary, black-and-white world? There are beautiful, vibrant colors all around you, man. The world is a complicated place, and that's not just ok, it's a great thing!
 
Advertisement
maurice3p said:
Wisconsin probably has the best coaching staff in the country
Click to expand...

That's certainly an arguable point, but we can agree that is a well-coached team. It also completely invalidates OP's intended point that coaching doesn't matter and blue-chip ratio is the only thing that does matter.

Regardless, let's go ahead and accept OP's premise that recruiting is all that matters... What does that say? To me, it means this program is dead and there is 0 (zero) hope for the future. We're never going to outrecruit the Bag schools, and we can't compete with them at the bag game.

So, what is the point of this thread? To confirm that things look hopeless?
 
PalyCane said:
Our under-performance is worse still when considering that our immediate competition each year is comprised of ACC teams. Yes, there are 15 teams on that list who have a better blue-chip ratios, but we only play two to three of them regularly and in many years only play one of them (Clemson, ND & FSU).

Sure we likely need more talent to challenge for a NC. But lack of talent has nothing to with being unable to win the ACC Coastal against, UNC, UVA, VT, GT, Duke and Pitt.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, can't line up and say I have more blue chips than you so I win. Just because some pencil-neck at his computer was more impressed with Miami's recruiting class three years ago doesn't mean they're necessarily now a better team than Duke, let's say. Cutcliffe has recruited to a system and developed players within his system, including a QB who was a high first round draft pick and currently starting for the Giants. Miami hasn't done that in a couple decades. And he's plugged in another solid QB this season. He's got 4th and 5th year players on his Oline while Miami has a physically underwhelming kiddie core.
Again, the infatuation with blue chippers is crazy.
 
As much as Wisconsin punches above it's weight as far as recruiting rankings, still ZERO college football playoff appearances.
 
bacane said:
Point is, it's not simply one thing. It's not as easy as someone having "bought" a top 3 roster. It's also the coaching, culture, system, facilities, expectations. Yeah, Coley is now running the offense at UGA, but it's the UGA and Kirby Smart offense with better talent than he had at Miami. And be sure, if he screws it up or they slip in the slightest, Smart will have no patience and UGA will throw money at the problem and seek an immediate fix.
Click to expand...
I can't disagree with what you say here. all fair and good points.....except the point about Kirby firing anyone. Not that is matters to the point we're discussing it just still remains to be seen.
 
Back
Top